Serafin v. Realmark Holdings, LLC

Background

The court considered a motion by the defendant referred to in the opinion as Ms. Serafin. She asked the court to strike paragraphs 22–36, 39, and 41 of the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), which allows a court to remove from a pleading material that is insufficient, redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous. She also sought to strike Exhibits C, D, E, F, G, and N, or alternatively to have them filed under seal because of confidential information.

Robert Serafin opposed the motion. He argued that the challenged allegations concerned the defendants’ prior fraud, alleged tendency to engage in fraud, and alleged acts by Ms. Serafin while she was serving as chief executive officer of Realmark Inc. He also filed redacted versions of Exhibits C, D, F, G, and N. He argued that Exhibit E did not contain personal information requiring redaction.

Motion to Strike

The court explained that a motion to strike is a disfavored and drastic remedy. The moving party must show that the challenged material clearly could have no possible bearing on the subject of the litigation. Allegations providing background, historical information, or evidentiary material generally should not be stricken unless they are unduly prejudicial.

The court denied the motion to strike. It found that Ms. Serafin had offered only conclusory statements that the challenged paragraphs were irrelevant or scandalous. She had not shown which allegations were scandalous or unduly prejudicial, or that the paragraphs clearly could not bear on the litigation.

Confidential Information in Exhibits

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(a) limits the personal information that may appear in public court filings, including Social Security and taxpayer-identification numbers, birth dates, minors’ names, and financial-account numbers. The court found that the original versions of Exhibits C, D, F, G, and N violated that rule. The opinion identifies account and routing numbers, credit-charge information, a date of birth, an employment-related customer account number, and a cell-phone number among the information at issue.

The court ordered the original versions of Exhibits C, D, F, G, and N removed from the public docket. It found that the redacted versions filed at Docket No. 40 complied with Rule 5.2(a) and ordered those versions to replace the originals. The court found that Exhibit E did not contain confidential information that Rule 5.2(a) required to be redacted.

Disposition

The court denied Ms. Serafin’s motion to strike. It ordered each defendant to file a responsive pleading within 14 days of the order. The order’s title also states that motions for default judgment were denied, but the provided opinion text does not provide the basis for that ruling or separately describe those motions.